With the baby boys- I did know that Caroline and Laura and Rose had all lost sons. When my son was born in 2011 I thought of them. I found myself crying over the loss of Laura's two month old, when my DS was two months, and again over Freddie when my DS was 10 months old. I can imagine their pain now and it's horrible. I found an interesting snippet though- although Laura & Almanzo apparently never named their baby boy, Grace kept a diary now and then when they were in South Dakota. There's an entry that reads "Laura's baby died, he looked just like Almanzo." Poor little boy.

According to the Zochert book, Laura's son was born in August of 1889 and lived for 12 days. He was unnamed, and died of convulsions.

Zochert stated that Laura "hadn't thought to pick a name for him," making her sound uncaring. I doubt that was the case at all. I suspect that whatever killed the poor little baby was apparent from birth, and that the family didn't name him because they didn't think that he was going to live.

And she may have wanted to name her son after her husband and/or father, so she had no other names picked out. It was considered unlucky to give subsequent children the name(s) of a child who had died. She probably expected that she would have other sons, since they were both young. And if there was something significantly wrong with this child, she didn't want to waste the names.

I think even so, they should have named the poor baby something.

I don't think naming the baby after her father or husband (not that I think he wanted a son named after him) would be "wasted". In my family tree are plenty of babies who died young, and if the parents had a child of the same gender later, they tried again with the same name .

With the baby boys- I did know that Caroline and Laura and Rose had all lost sons. When my son was born in 2011 I thought of them. I found myself crying over the loss of Laura's two month old, when my DS was two months, and again over Freddie when my DS was 10 months old. I can imagine their pain now and it's horrible. I found an interesting snippet though- although Laura & Almanzo apparently never named their baby boy, Grace kept a diary now and then when they were in South Dakota. There's an entry that reads "Laura's baby died, he looked just like Almanzo." Poor little boy.

According to the Zochert book, Laura's son was born in August of 1889 and lived for 12 days. He was unnamed, and died of convulsions.

Zochert stated that Laura "hadn't thought to pick a name for him," making her sound uncaring. I doubt that was the case at all. I suspect that whatever killed the poor little baby was apparent from birth, and that the family didn't name him because they didn't think that he was going to live.

And she may have wanted to name her son after her husband and/or father, so she had no other names picked out. It was considered unlucky to give subsequent children the name(s) of a child who had died. She probably expected that she would have other sons, since they were both young. And if there was something significantly wrong with this child, she didn't want to waste the names.

I think even so, they should have named the poor baby something.

I don't think naming the baby after her father or husband (not that I think he wanted a son named after him) would be "wasted". In my family tree are plenty of babies who died young, and if the parents had a child of the same gender later, they tried again with the same name .

That was explained in the previous line.

In Gone With The Wind, Scarlett had three younger brothers that died. They were all named Gerald O'Hara Jr.

With the baby boys- I did know that Caroline and Laura and Rose had all lost sons. When my son was born in 2011 I thought of them. I found myself crying over the loss of Laura's two month old, when my DS was two months, and again over Freddie when my DS was 10 months old. I can imagine their pain now and it's horrible. I found an interesting snippet though- although Laura & Almanzo apparently never named their baby boy, Grace kept a diary now and then when they were in South Dakota. There's an entry that reads "Laura's baby died, he looked just like Almanzo." Poor little boy.

According to the Zochert book, Laura's son was born in August of 1889 and lived for 12 days. He was unnamed, and died of convulsions.

Zochert stated that Laura "hadn't thought to pick a name for him," making her sound uncaring. I doubt that was the case at all. I suspect that whatever killed the poor little baby was apparent from birth, and that the family didn't name him because they didn't think that he was going to live.

And she may have wanted to name her son after her husband and/or father, so she had no other names picked out. It was considered unlucky to give subsequent children the name(s) of a child who had died. She probably expected that she would have other sons, since they were both young. And if there was something significantly wrong with this child, she didn't want to waste the names.

I think even so, they should have named the poor baby something.

I don't think naming the baby after her father or husband (not that I think he wanted a son named after him) would be "wasted". In my family tree are plenty of babies who died young, and if the parents had a child of the same gender later, they tried again with the same name .

That was explained in the previous line.

In Gone With The Wind, Scarlett had three younger brothers that died. They were all named Gerald O'Hara Jr.

And their neighbors probably pointed to that and said "See, it's bad luck!"

Logged

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Common sense is not a gift, but a curse. Because thenyou have to deal with all the people who don't have it. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Names were a big deal, some people could handle naming a baby and loosing the child, others couldn't bear naming them. My mother used to do research for pioneer graveyards. The hardest ones she verified were two eleven year old girls with the same name. Their tombstones were so worn it took time to find death records for them each. We assumed that the family must have buried her in one place and then moved her later on. Research showed girl 1 died at age eleven, years later her older brother named a daughter the same name. Girl 2 also died at age eleven. According to the records, the family never used that name again.

I also helped clean and restore the graveyards. People couldn't always afford a gravestone for the baby. Sometimes, all that stood over a baby's grave was a small stone that said "Baby". I always supposed Laura and Almanzo simply hadn't agreed on a name, but couldn't bear to choose one when their son died. They must have thought there would be more children after that. Back then the chances of any child reaching adulthood was low compared to now.

Could you imagine carrying a child and then waiting to see if they would survive after birth? I don't know if I could have given that child a name until I knew they would live. There were so many babies and children buried in the pioneer graveyards. One tombstone always stayed in my memory, three kids died in days of each other from the same family. They each have one side of a square tombstone dedicated to them. And if the family had lost a fourth child, there was the empty fourth space ready.

One tombstone always stayed in my memory, three kids died in days of each other from the same family. They each have one side of a square tombstone dedicated to them. And if the family had lost a fourth child, there was the empty fourth space ready.

Date? Maybe something like a cholera epidemic, or influenza.

Logged

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Common sense is not a gift, but a curse. Because thenyou have to deal with all the people who don't have it. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

For three generations in my mother's family, a boy named Joseph died young- from infancy, to up to about 10 or 11 years old. In the next generation, his older sister named a son Joseph, and the pattern repeated. It ended with my mother, who was the only daughter, and who had no sons to name Joseph.

One tombstone always stayed in my memory, three kids died in days of each other from the same family. They each have one side of a square tombstone dedicated to them. And if the family had lost a fourth child, there was the empty fourth space ready.

Date? Maybe something like a cholera epidemic, or influenza.

Or diptheria, or whooping cough.

One of the reasons why I'm in the "Heck, yes, of course my kids are immunized!" camp is that I've read entirely too many stories written before 1950.

One tombstone always stayed in my memory, three kids died in days of each other from the same family. They each have one side of a square tombstone dedicated to them. And if the family had lost a fourth child, there was the empty fourth space ready.

Date? Maybe something like a cholera epidemic, or influenza.

If you haven't read it, I recommend MRS. MIKE, a novel about a young woman who marries a Mountie who patrols in one of the Canadian territories (I don't remember if it were Yukon or NW). One of her neighbors explains to her that women talk about their first family, their second family, etc.- because it is so common that an epidemic would take the lives of all the children, so that a woman would have a second set of children who were born after their older siblings had died. While there are lots of sad parts, it's a wonderful love story as well.Another good story is 'No Time on My Hands' by Grace Snyder, who was a little younger than LIW, and who had 3 wishes as she was growing up: to marry a cowboy, to see the top side of a cloud, and to make the most beautiful quilt in the world...and how she achieved her goals.

One tombstone always stayed in my memory, three kids died in days of each other from the same family. They each have one side of a square tombstone dedicated to them. And if the family had lost a fourth child, there was the empty fourth space ready.

Date? Maybe something like a cholera epidemic, or influenza.

Or diptheria, or whooping cough.

One of the reasons why I'm in the "Heck, yes, of course my kids are immunized!" camp is that I've read entirely too many stories written before 1950.

My sister's husband was one of the polio kids of the 1950's, stricken just weeks before the first vaccine was available. You bet that ALL of our kids and grandkids get immunized!

I don't remember the original shots for polio, but I have very clear memories of the original rounds of the oral vaccine; the parents brought all the kids to the school on a certain night, and the kids were each given a sugar cube that the vaccine had been dripped on. (Can you even get sugar cubes nowdays?)

Logged

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Common sense is not a gift, but a curse. Because thenyou have to deal with all the people who don't have it. ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

I remember the sugar cubes! We had to come to the school, but it was on Sunday afternoon; I remember my parents telling us not to change out of our church clothes when we came home from church, because we'd be going out again after dinner. Ah, the days when a polio vaccine was enough of an occasion, people wore their Sunday best!

A lot of people born during the 40's and 50's have the circular, pale, discolored spot on their upper left arm that is the scar from the small pox inoculation they received as children.

Additional add to the off topic. Yep, that is probably what it is. I have the same scar from when I got my smallpox inoculation. Yay deployment requirements!

On topic: I never got why Mary was written as the pretty one. I always thought Laura was the prettiest of all the girls. And I kind of had a thing for Cap Garland when I read about him. Shame he died young... I could have had a chance with his grandson

Logged

My inner (r-word) is having a field day with this one.-Love is Evol: Christopher Titus-